Click here for the review of Salt

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

This might be my favorite part of this review. Once again, bravo James!

Yep, this definitely sounds like my kind of film! For me the lack of "spy" stuff or character devlopment isn't really a big deal at all, so i'll sure as hell be seeing this!

It sucks when a film tries to convey an intelligent plot only to give up halfway through. If Noyce had either stuck with "smart" or "all action", this film may have gotten better ratings.

Well maybe there were more of those scenes that ended up getting trimmed in the editing room or something, anyways that's not really a downside for me-as long as this film delivers on the action, i'll be happy.

If only the review caption had said: Mindless and empty, but Vex will love it.

All in good fun, Vex -- I really do accept and respect your taste, even if I don't fully understand it. I mean, I saw this trailer when it first came out and knew you would dig it.

Well my taste in movies can easily be explained in two words-Aspberger's Syndrome, most everyone on this forum knows that, because of my "condition" or whatever in general I just tend to get enjoyment out of mindless films like these then ones that are deadly serious and try and make me "think" like Inception, course that's to say that I hate those types of films, because I don't, i'm just not quite as enthusiastic about them as most people are.

My taste in movies can be summed up like this - if I can work up a physical reaction of any kind by immersing myself in the film (not including masturbation or projectile vomiting), then the film has been at the very least a minor success.

Sorry, this is a must-miss for me. Netflix, at best.

I normally don't do this and I really shouldn't care but...Ebert gave it four stars! And the review sounds like my reaction to The Marine...but it without laughing at its incompetence.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100721/REVIEWS/100729997

This is why I love reading James and Ebert. They had much different reactions to the movie, and yet from both reviews I feel like I get a good idea of what to expect from the movie. The same idea actually. Anyway, enjoyed both reviews--including all the food metaphors from James--and have this movie queued up in my brain as a "check it out on cable in 2 or 3 years."

WHOA! Now THAT I definitley didn't see coming, even I think 4 stars is overdoing it, but the review is still a MUCH more pleasant read then his HORRIBLE 4 star review of Knowing! (last time I meniton that review, I swear! ) which I quite honestly found MUCH more painful to read then ANY of Armond White's reviews!

So basically, James, what you're saying is that this film is basically akin to taking a complex John Le Carre story and whittling it down to basic plot upon which to build action scenes. I would be more interested in the movie if it was devised as a literary thriller in the tradition of "The Tailor of Panama" or "Body of Lies." I am once again surprised by Ebert's review, although he does admit to the problems that critics are having with the movie.

This review is actually timely for me, because I am reading "The Perfect Spy" and watching the original "Edge of Darkness."

Ebert's review is accurate if you don't get hung up too much on the star rating. It's a good entry in the action-oriented preposterous spy vs. spy genre. You may not want this much action and more story, but the action is very well done, and the twists and turns are fun. I'd split the difference of the two reviews and give it ***1/4 stars. I read Ebert's rating as where it stands in its genre (Bond and Bourne), not where it stands compared compared to Citizen Kane and Schindler's List.

Yeah I pretty much agree with the rest of you, Phillip Noyce certainly knows to direct action and keep the audience involved as the pacing rarely lets up or gives you a chance to breathe, the main downsides would be the PG-13 rating(James is right-a film with this sort of subject matter definitely isn't for kids) and I did find the major twist at the end to be somewhat predictable and the music score DID get rather overbearing at times, but other then that I can't really think of any other complaints, I can definitely see this film doing well against Inception as my theater was pretty packed.

While I pretty much agree with James's concern about the likes of 10- and even 15-year-olds seeing this film and maybe taking it seriously: Hey, it's an action-filled spoof and a definite coup for director, star, and--above all--star's stunt double. (Better make that plural. Just one couldn't possibly have survived all that.) Of course, as Ebert and others have commented, the plot holes (starting--and ending--with just about every feat performed by Salt) are humongous, but who cares? It's okay to suspend disbelief even when you do so just for fun. (You once bought Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Batman, and that magic lamp / genie / three wishes thing, didn't you? Why not Superwo--uh, Salt?) I'd have given it three stars.

It's not a spoof. That's part of the problem. It's escapism, but it is intended to be taken seriously (at least to the degree that any action film is intended to be taken seriously). By your definition of "spoof," any of the Brosnan Bond movies would be considered "spoofs."

Yep, this. For me the moment was when

Okay, James, I take back "spoof"; it was an ill-chosen term. Thinking about it later, it seems to me that it's essentially something like the Batman films--a strip performed by flesh-and-blood actors. On that basis, it's great action-fantasy (can you really look at Salt's athletic feats any other way?).

But I still share your concern about youngsters, who aren't up to sorting that stuff out.